California Supreme Court Strikes Down Specific Cannabis Possession & Grow Limits

[justalilrowdy]

The California Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling in
People v. Kelly today.

As expected, the court struck down the so-called SB 420 quantity
limits in HSC 11362.77 as applied to patients' right to grow, but
upheld their application for other purposes, e.g. as a "safe harbor"
guideline for protecting patients from arrest.

We conclude, consistently with the decision of the Court of Appeal below (and with the position of both parties in the present litigation), that insofar as section 11362.77 burdens a defense under the CUA to a criminal charge of possessing or cultivating marijuana, it impermissibly amends the CUA and in that respect is invalid under article II, section 10, subdivision (c). We also conclude, consistently with theviews of both parties in the present litigation, that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that section 11362.77 must be severed from the MMP and hence voided.

......

We conclude as follows: To the extent section 11362.77 (together with its quantitative limitations) permissibly amends the CUA by burdening a defense that would be available pursuant to that initiative statute, section 11362.77 is invalid under California Constitution article II, section 10, subdivision (c).
Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and hence void that provision in its entirety. To the extent the judgment of the Court of Appeal purports to sever section 11362.77 from the MMP and to void this statute in its entirety, the judgment is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed

--
Read More: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S164830.PDF
Dale Gieringer - dale@canorml.org
California NORML, NEW ADDRESS: 2261 Market St. #278A, San Francisco
CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org

 

[Skip]

This is GREAT news for everyone! SB420's limits are gone! You can now grow, possess, transport cannabis without limits so long as you are part of a collective, with a medical recommendation or as a caregiver.

Note: There are qualifications to this. Personal grows are still subject to the CUA limit, which is determined by how much cannabis you actually need as medicine.

Time to celebrate!

 

[Shred42O]

this is great news
just to get this straight if i go to a caregiver to get my meds does that mean iam part of the collective or caregiver

 

[vta]

Very cool.....I think I will take them up on that!

Keep it under a 100 folks

 

[mcmawg]

Woooo Hooooo!
One more brick OUTA the wall!

 

[fatigues]

This is about as beneficial a result as one could reasonably have expected.

The advantages of the MMP are retained; the disadvantages are thrown out. Baby kept - bathwater down the drain.

People v. Kelly is, on the whole, a substantial victory for the pro-Cannabis movement.

 

[johnnyla]

Yeah, but in reality, what does this really mean as far as plant counts and growing personal? What if someone needs more than that?

are the cops going to still pop everyone over the limits and have the courts decide?

 

[djslife]

So now instead of being allowed to grow 6 mature or 12 immature plants I can grow as many as I want?

Kind of confused here, can I get a little help amigos?

-djslife

 

[fatigues]

This is GREAT news for everyone! SB420's limits are gone! You can now grow, possess, transport cannabis without limits so long as you are part of a collective, with a medical recommendation or as a caregiver.

I do not agree with this characterization of the ruling in People v. Kelly. There IS a limit under the CUA and there remains a limit. It is a limit dictated by reason and the practicalities of the patient's needs in all of the circumstances. That's the limit under the CUA and that limit remains. There simply is no arbitrary numerical limit which aplies to everyone in every possible conceivable circumstance... in theory, that is.

If you doubt that reasoning, you might try growing 500 or 1,000 plants for your personal medical use, get 2 lbs a light off of each, and let me know how that half a ton of weed (or a full ton) case works out for you under your defense under the CUA.

Don't be an ass about it, and you'll probably be okay. Push those limits beyond all reason, the court WILL nail you for it.

 

[johnnyla]

yeah i'm not worried about a court, but the cops. i have medical records out the wazoo to prove my need, it's just the coppers im worried about are still going to be adhering to the 6/12.

so the limit is: "consistent with individual patients use"???

how are they going to enforce plant counts then?

 

[johnnyla]

fuck i was hoping to not have to spend extra cash to see another doctor who writes very specific plant count and weight on his prescription but i think to be safe i will get that as well.

 

[MrBomDiggitty]

the feds can still rip you a new one. this has nothing to do with federal court rulings

 

[johnnyla]

the feds can still rip you a new one. this has nothing to do with federal court rulings

i'm not doing anything the feds would be remotely interested in, especially considering where i live.

i'm just in it for affordable medicine to treat my illness and cannot afford legal issues.

 

[Skip]

Very cool.....I think I will take them up on that!

Keep it under a 100 folks

I do not agree with this characterization of the ruling in People v. Kelly. There IS a limit under the CUA and there remains a limit. It is a limit dictated by reason and the practicalities of the patient's needs in all of the circumstances. That's the limit under the CUA and that limit remains. There simply is no arbitrary numerical limit which aplies to everyone in every possible conceivable circumstance... in theory, that is.

If you doubt that reasoning, you might try growing 500 or 1,000 plants for your personal medical use, get 2 lbs a light off of each, and let me know how that half a ton of weed (or a full ton) case works out for you under your defense under the CUA.

Don't be an ass about it, and you'll probably be okay. Push those limits beyond all reason, the court WILL nail you for it.

Yes, of course everyone should realize that growing more than 99 plants puts you under the purview of the DEA. They won't let you grow more than that, and will go after you if you do.

So that is the reasonable limit for growing.

But wait! I've seen where the DEA has relented when there is PROOF that the grow is for medical patients as part of a collective. Can't remember where I saw it, but a recent article...

 

[mr noodles]

damn....im jealous now.....very jealous...cannot be more honest about it lol

way to go california !

 

[fatigues]

Yes, of course everyone should realize that growing more than 99 plants puts you under the purview of the DEA. They won't let you grow more than that, and will go after you if you do.

I am suggesting that if you grow a significant number of plants for just your own personal use, even say - 20 or 30, you may well be busted by state police (and maybe not). Add collectives into the mix, and the plant count flexibility is certainly a very happy one - no argument. With a number of people collectively growing, then, the DEA limit probably is the real one to worry about on a practical basis.

But for individuals, I do not agree that People v. Kelly suddenly left people with "a DEA limit only" plant count to worry about. That's not a responsible statement and it's not a realistic one either.

It's helpful sure, but that does not mean that it is "open season" just yet. People v. Kelly didn't suddenly legalize marijuana in the state of California, either.

That's a discussion for later this year (I hope).

 

[djslife]

I am suggesting that if you grow a significant number of plants for just your own personal use, even say - 20 or 30, you may well be busted by state police (and maybe not). Add collectives into the mix, and the plant count flexibility is certainly a very happy one - no argument. With a number of people collectively growing, then, the DEA limit probably is the real one to worry about on a practical basis.

But for individuals, I do not agree that People v. Kelly suddenly left people with "a DEA limit only" plant count to worry about. That's not a responsible statement and it's not a realistic one either.

It's helpful sure, but that does not mean that it is "open season" just yet. People v. Kelly didn't suddenly legalize marijuana in the state of California, either.

That's a discussion for later this year (I hope).

I really appreciate your honesty. I read through about half of the pdf. and came back with the same feeling as you. I agree, people posting on here need to be more responsible about the statements they make.

-djslife

 

[Skip]

Fatigues that argument won't fly anymore. If you are a member of a collective, you are allowed to grow for that collective. There no longer is a limit as far as SB420 or Prop 215 goes. And that is all that matters in CA, as far as I know.

So if you get popped with say 50 plants, it might not be for you, but for members of your collective. Up until now, you had to show enough recommendations to prove that you're growing for others who are also legal.

So say a dispensary has a dozen ppl growing for it. I doubt there needs to be posted at each grow a certain # of recommendations. So long as the collective itself can cover the # of needed recommendations for any particular grow, it's probably not a problem.

Now as far as the new LA law is concerned, you can only join one collective/dispensary. I assume if you join a chain of dispensaries, you can visit any of them, but that could change under the new law.

So in theory in LA a grower can only grow for one dispensary. But I don't see how this is enforceable...

As far as actual cases goes, as much as 60 pounds of pot (in transit) has been returned to California residents/dispensaries. How do you reconcile THAT with your statement that my words are irresponsible? I take umbrage at that.

CHP Ordered to return 60 pounds of Pot...
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=153389

 

[mr noodles]

can i ask a simple question ?

in short term for the people who dont want to get involved in anything and dont want to share .what is their plant limit for self medication ?

no large grow , a real medicinal garden for 1 person and not intended for any kind of distribution ?

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

great news now lets, GET EDDY LEP OUT OF JAIL!!!!!!!!!